Yet again, for someone that comes here to preach about rights, who are you to say how my child should be raised?

Where the hell did I say anything about your rights to raise your kid? You are getting as bad as Axgar. What exactly did I say that would limit your rights as a parent? I gave my opinion, I didn't say anything about laws.

You keep coming up with these assinine remarks about me and rights, and repeatedly fail to provide any example where I am advocating ANYTHING that would limit your stupid rights. You are the one trying to limit rights here, all the while reserving the right to make an ass of yourself by arguing things that aren't even there.

Do you even realize how absurd your position is? You are bitching about rights when I express opinions, meanwhile arguing the government should regulate what goes on in the privacy of homes.

Judge Judy: You are an idiot, Sir!

__________________Once is an anomoly, twice is a statistic, three times is the imminent takeover of the Devil. -Kulani

Where the hell did I say anything about your rights to raise your kid? You are getting as bad as Axgar. What exactly did I say that would limit your rights as a parent? I gave my opinion, I didn't say anything about laws.

You keep coming up with these assinine remarks about me and rights, and repeatedly fail to provide any example where I am advocating ANYTHING that would limit your stupid rights. You are the one trying to limit rights here, all the while reserving the right to make an ass of yourself by arguing things that aren't even there.

Do you even realize how absurd your position is? You are bitching about rights when I express opinions, meanwhile arguing the government should regulate what goes on in the privacy of homes.

Judge Judy: You are an idiot, Sir!

You come here and piss and moan about people not having the right to have a sex party, yet on the other hand you preach about how a child should be raised. Classic.

YOU are the one bitching about rights here, and I clearly pointed out that the right to a noisy sex party is not more important than the right to sleep in your own house.

If you are going to argue that people can have a 100-man sex party due to it being "no one's business," then it is quite arrogant and hypocritical to give two shits about how I raise my kids now isn't it?

You come here and piss and moan about people not having the right to have a sex party,

Wrong, I said the government shouldn't regulate what peopel do in their homes, and therefor shouldn't be targetting this with new legislation. Not surprisingly you have to completely mischaracterize things to sound coherent.

Originally Posted by Furo

yet on the other hand you preach about how a child should be raised. Classic

So respecting rights and freedom is contrary to knowing how to parent, why?

Again you present a completely false dichotomy to sound sane.

Originally Posted by Furo

YOU are the one bitching about rights here, and I clearly pointed out that the right to a noisy sex party is not more important than the right to sleep in your own house.

..and I responded that the rights of Aemricans and thier sovereignity is more important than one night a week on a weekend for you to be able to sleep. Put on some damn ear muffs, why does the government have to become obtrusive and new legislation have to be passed instead of you using some damned earplugs? Why? Because you are full of fool's choices and false dichotomies. There is no choice required! You are just lazy and nosey... to the point of taking away rights to stay LAZY and NOSEY.

Originally Posted by Furo

If you are going to argue that people can have a 100-man sex party due to it being "no one's business," then it is quite arrogant and hypocritical to give two shits about how I raise my kids now isn't it?

Not so long as I am not supporting legislation that tells you how to parent. Voicing my own opinion has nothing to do with my advocacy of government non-interference. GET IT? Can you even understand how completely you are mischaracterizing arguments to force your babble to sound halfway sane?

__________________Once is an anomoly, twice is a statistic, three times is the imminent takeover of the Devil. -Kulani

Wrong, I said the government shouldn't regulate what peopel do in their homes, and therefor shouldn't be targetting this with new legislation. Not surprisingly you have to completely mischaracterize things to sound coherent.

And you spoke your mind with no regard to the actual facts of this case Everclear.

And the facts are that the neighbors are complaining of "the noise, traffic and parking problems that occur in their otherwise quiet, upscale neighborhood every Friday and Saturday, when Trulock's home is transformed into "The Cherry Pit."

This has nothing to do with what is allowed within the confines of someone's own house and everything to do with those actions becoming a disturbance to the community.

Your pathetic attempt to twist this into a tolerance issue is childish.

You simply decided to rant about whether or not people should be allowed to do whatever they want in their homes.

What you failed to comprehend is that YOUR REMARKS HAVE LITTLE IF ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL FACTS IN DUNCANVILLE, TX.

And then you decided to rant about how a parent should raise their kids, as if you have any say.

Originally Posted by Everclear

..and I responded that the rights of Aemricans and thier sovereignity is more important than one night a week on a weekend for you to be able to sleep.

Bullshit. Where do you come up with this?

I don't care if it is one person's party or 1,000 people, the rights of the majority do not trump those of the minority. Are you that fucking stupid?

I don't care if it is one person's party or 1,000 people, the rights of the majority do not trump those of the minority. Are you that fucking stupid?

When you can easily mitigate any harm by putting in earplugs, turning on a radio, doing one of MANY things to sleep short of government intervention into people's lives... then YES it DOES.

What fucking rock did you climb out from under? You are a typical idiot who runs to the government as first remedy, instead of simply doing a little extra to solve the problem yourself. It's not like earplugs represent an undue burden or anything.

So what would you tell the judge? The judge asks

"Why should I create more laws on the books, limit this guy's rights, and create more work for the system, when you can jsut put in earlplugs?"

Youre response: DUH, because I'm a fucking moron with nothing better to do than hassle people!

Originally Posted by Furo

What you failed to comprehend is that YOUR REMARKS HAVE LITTLE IF ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL FACTS IN DUNCANVILLE, TX.

Would this be the part where I said that if they are voilating pre-existing ordinances, that is wrong? Or would it be the part where I suggested towing cars to make some cash?

..or maybe you're just an idiot who doesn't even read what the fuck is said!

Let me spell it out for you since it wasn't clear enough when I ALREADY SAID :

Oh, I agree, if they are breaking laws, that is not okay. I jsut don't think new laws need to be passed, specifically aiming to prohibit their activity.

but you just keep on babbling about how they are freaks and how you would "do more"... which two people have asked you to clarify, and you can't... except that you would tresspass to bitch to your neighbor... do you do anything else?

Cause the bottom line is you are full of shit. You can't help but shoot your mouth off, and all that comes out is more shit.

__________________Once is an anomoly, twice is a statistic, three times is the imminent takeover of the Devil. -Kulani

You people need to lighten up with the personal attacks. Or if you are going to use them, at least make them well researched. For example, post pictures of ECs left boob that has 3 nipples. Or pictures of all 6 of Furos nuts. They dont call him Grape Ape for nothing you know.

__________________
If you don't have something good to say about some one, say it loud.

I don't care if it is one person's party or 1,000 people, the rights of the majority do not trump those of the minority. Are you that fucking stupid?

When you can easily mitigate any harm by putting in earplugs, turning on a radio, doing one of MANY things to sleep short of government intervention into people's lives... then YES it DOES.

Well I guess you are that stupid then.

Do you have any legal basis for this claim of yours? You know of cases where a judge has ruled that someone "put in earplugs" to mitigate the effects of a noisy party in a neighborhood?

Do you have proof of any case, whatsoever, wherein the rights of the minority are suppressed for those of the majority?

Originally Posted by Everclear

What fucking rock did you climb out from under? You are a typical idiot who runs to the government as first remedy, instead of simply doing a little extra to solve the problem yourself. It's not like earplugs represent an undue burden or anything.

Now you are resorting to flat out bullshit to back up your already feeble and lost point.

So what constitutes crossing the line, Everclear? When does it become too much of a burden on the homeowner? Why don't we just advocate that the neighbor pack his shit and move to a different neighborhood if he can't handle the noise, right?

Of all the arguments I've seen on this board, yours above is probably the least educated and most ignorant example to date.

Originally Posted by Everclear

So what would you tell the judge? The judge asks

"Why should I create more laws on the books, limit this guy's rights, and create more work for the system, when you can jsut put in earlplugs?"

My response?

My response would be this: "I'm sorry to have asked that stupid fucking question, your honor. I most certainly KNOW THAT JUDGES DO NOT HAVE THE MANDATE NOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO LEGISLATE AND PUT LAWS ON THE BOOKS."

Have you ever taken a class in government?

Originally Posted by Everclear

but you just keep on babbling about how they are freaks and how you would "do more"... which two people have asked you to clarify, and you can't... except that you would tresspass to bitch to your neighbor... do you do anything else?

I don't know, because I haven't seen the results of my face-to-face with him now have I?

Originally Posted by Everclear

You can't help but shoot your mouth off, and all that comes out is more shit.

And you can't stick to the facts of the case, wherein all of your bullshit is a non-issue, because this article isn't about regulating what people do in their house. It is about the disturbance these actions cause in the neighborhood.

Everclear, you've lost this debate not only on a legal level, but also on a common-sense level, because you can't adhere to topicality.

Of all the arguments I've seen on this board, yours above is probably the least educated and most ignorant example to date.

Says the guy who never heard of slavery.

Originally Posted by Furo

Have you ever taken a class in government?

Ehh they can grant injunctions, and yeah it would probably be the city council. Way to ignore the fact you're a moron and latch onto minutae!
Deflection ftw!

Originally Posted by Furo

I don't know, because I haven't seen the results of my face-to-face with him now have I?

Well, maybe you could respect rights by intimidating him... although at least that is better tha nswelling the government up bigger. Although he would probably just laugh at the guy who don't get any lubbins.

Originally Posted by Furo

Everclear, you've lost this debate not only on a legal level, but also on a common-sense level, because you can't adhere to topicality.

Uhh huh. You fail at teh intraneTz

__________________Once is an anomoly, twice is a statistic, three times is the imminent takeover of the Devil. -Kulani

The Plessy decision only supports my side here, in that suppressing the rights of the minority is Unconsititutional.

Your side of this debate advocates that the minority just deal with it, and use your "earplugs" solution.

The bullshit is just stacking up, isn't it, Everclear?

Originally Posted by Everclear

Ehh they can grant injunctions, and yeah it would probably be the city council. Way to ignore the fact you're a moron and latch onto minutae!

Way to ignore how the fucking government actually works, Everclear.

Your entire stance on this issue is bullshit, and you further prove that by declaring that judges legislate and "put laws on the books." (Which by the way is ENTIRELY different than in injunction. Injunctions do not create new law.)

But you knew that, right?

Originally Posted by Everclear

Well, maybe you could respect rights by intimidating him... although at least that is better tha nswelling the government up bigger. Although he would probably just laugh at the guy who don't get any lubbins.

You seem to think that I advocated somewhere on this thread that there should be a new law enacted to ban the practice of sex parties. Can you refer to where I posted this? Can you refer to where I encourage new legislation?

You are arguing a non-issue, failing at it, and you still don't even realize it.

Have fun defending your freedoms while you cram earplugs in your face every time someone wakes you up at night, rather than taking action.

The Plessy decision only supports my side here, in that suppressing the rights of the minority is Unconsititutional.

You asked me to provide exampels where it had happened and I did. Now you want to argue that one of those examples ended? Yeah no shit it ended, so fucking what? Another straw man? I did what you asked, and all you can do is make more straw men. Pathetic, you even managed to ignore the multiple examples that are currently happening.

Originally Posted by Furo

The bullshit is just stacking up, isn't it, Everclear?

and everytime you post it jsut gets higher!

Originally Posted by Furo

But you knew that, right

this is hilarious. You completely run away from the fact that you made an idiot of yourself with your posts by hiding behind these straw men arguments! There you are with your thumb in your ass, asking the government to step in because you can't wear some fucking earplugs, and all you can do is nitpick about my word choice in saying "judge" instead of city council! Classic!

Originally Posted by Furo

You are arguing a non-issue, failing at it, and you still don't even realize it

Oh how cute! Now you are not supporting legislation that would target this guy! So now it turns out you agreed with me all along! I was imagining when you said you wouldn't jsut sign petitions or whatever... that you would do more. I was imagining when you were talking about sex around families (OMG!).

Turns out Furo is really an understanding guy who is just misunderstood, and really doesn't want the government involved at all! Poor guy, why am I being so mean to you, biscuit?

Originally Posted by Furo

Have fun defending your freedoms while you cram earplugs in your face every time someone wakes you up at night, rather than taking action.

Oh, it's no problem. The fratboy across the way has periodic parties, with tons of people. I was wondering if his balcony would collapse a couple times, from the number of people.

I just put the dog in bed, we watched TV a bit (it was a Friday or Saturday)... and went to bed. Sure I could hear the boom boom of music andh ear people... but so what? It's not the end of the world, and they were having fun. Just because I was going to bed at 11 on a weekend doesn't mean I should be bitter about others partying. I was 21 once, and I DO remember having some fun. Maybe you jsut never had fun... or maybe you're just a whiney nosey fogey! When we heard peopel make a big noise sometimes we both chuckled. You don't have to hate your life, you know.

(We are moving this weekend, though... Yay!)

-as as idenote I do agree tha the rights of the majority should not trump the minority. In this particular case, it is really about the individual (the party thrower) vs the majority (neighbors)... so you actually have it backwards. I am championing the individual (minority here). - I typically do in these threads. It's my "thing".

__________________Once is an anomoly, twice is a statistic, three times is the imminent takeover of the Devil. -Kulani

You asked me to provide exampels where it had happened and I did. Now you want to argue that one of those examples ended? Yeah no shit it ended, so fucking what? Another straw man? I did what you asked, and all you can do is make more straw men. Pathetic, you even managed to ignore the multiple examples that are currently happening.

Take a second to breathe and collect your thoughts.

I'm not the one creating a straw-man argument here.

You are the one advocating that the government get out of the house, and I have not once advocated that there needs to be legislation enacted to stop these sex parties.

Until you show me where I stated this, then you are in fact arguing against no one but yourself.

Originally Posted by Everclear

this is hilarious. You completely run away from the fact that you made an idiot of yourself with your posts by hiding behind these straw men arguments! There you are with your thumb in your ass, asking the government to step in because you can't wear some fucking earplugs, and all you can do is nitpick about my word choice in saying "judge" instead of city council! Classic!

I nitpicked to show you that you are blowing steam out your ass rather than speaking accurately about the facts at hand.

You wrongly proclaimed that judges legislate and "put laws on the books."

If you don't want to be called on it, then don't post ignorant bullshit.

Originally Posted by Everclear

Oh how cute! Now you are not supporting legislation that would target this guy! So now it turns out you agreed with me all along! I was imagining when you said you wouldn't jsut sign petitions or whatever... that you would do more. I was imagining when you were talking about sex around families (OMG!).

Yes, you have quite the imagination.

Show me where I supported the enacting of legislation that would stop the sex parties.

Originally Posted by Everclear

Turns out Furo is really an understanding guy who is just misunderstood, and really doesn't want the government involved at all! Poor guy, why am I being so mean to you, biscuit?

Turns out that you can't comprehend the issues in the article, Everclear.

If you look at my posts on this thread, I explicitly referenced the complaints verbatim; as in the "noise, traffic and parking problems that occur in their otherwise quiet, upscale neighborhood."

I have not once advocated the passing of any new legislation.

So yes, you are in fact arguing a non-issue. You just haven't stopped to read your bullshit and realize it yet.

Originally Posted by Everclear

Oh, it's no problem. The fratboy across the way has periodic parties, with tons of people. I was wondering if his balcony would collapse a couple times, from the number of people.

Congratulations. You can handle a party. So can I. I live next to a nursing home full of mentally handicapped old women who frequently scream at night.

Regardless, this is completely beside the point. Just because it doesn't bother you or me when it comes to noise, this does not mean that it is justified in the eyes of the law.

You are the one advocating that the government get out of the house, and I have not once advocated that there needs to be legislation enacted to stop these sex parties

No, I said they government should stay out of homes, as in no extra legislation. I am tired of repeating that.

Originally Posted by Furo

Until you show me where I stated this, then you are in fact arguing against no one but yourself.

No, I was arguing with you because you came up wit hthese bullshit claims about how I was supposed to be for rights, and yet somehow I was limiting rights... and then about how because I support the rights of these people I would be a bad parent. You have been all over the place. It's no wonder you can't follow shit, you jump faster than a cat on a hot griddle.

Originally Posted by Fury

You wrongly proclaimed that judges legislate and "put laws on the books."

I said hypothetically if you were in front of a judge asking you that shit, you wouldn't have an answer. I would challenge you to quote me as saying Judges put laws on the books. Nice try at dodging the fact that you are a complete idiot and your position is head firmly in ass.

Originally Posted by from article

But the festivities could soon be over. In response to neighbors' complaints, the city has outlawed sex clubs in residential areas. Citations have been issued, and search warrants may be next.

You said you would be doing more? What is more than complaining until they pass laws outlawing the clubs? Who isn't reading now?

Originally Posted by Furo

Just because it doesn't bother you or me when it comes to noise, this does not mean that it is justified in the eyes of the law.

Well, the cities are passing NEW laws for dealing with these... so apparently there is room to speak out against this new wave of legislation.

There are new regulations in the article... you were supportiev of the residents who got it passed... and now you are here slack-jawed wondering why I think you support new legislation. Are you on drugs?

__________________Once is an anomoly, twice is a statistic, three times is the imminent takeover of the Devil. -Kulani

No, I said they government should stay out of homes, as in no extra legislation. I am tired of repeating that.

What you are repeating is that I am advocating new legislation.

I have not once advocated it, and I challenge you to show me where I have done so.

Originally Posted by Everclear

No, I was arguing with you because you came up wit hthese bullshit claims about how I was supposed to be for rights, and yet somehow I was limiting rights... and then about how because I support the rights of these people I would be a bad parent. You have been all over the place. It's no wonder you can't follow shit, you jump faster than a cat on a hot griddle.

You are clearly making this a "rights" issue. And you did it in your very first post.

In response, I posted that:

Originally Posted by furo

If the sex house owner is using the 1st Amendment to justify the party, as in the right to peaceably assemble, then that too can be limited if the other residents are successful at proving that the sex party is in fact "disturbing the peace" which in effect negates the "peaceable" assembly guaranteed under the 1st Amendment.

So your claim that this isn't a thread about rights is pure bullshit, Everclear. Take your head out of your own fourth point of contact and read your own bullshit, so that I don't have to post it again.

Then, after I declared that I would take personal action and prevent my kids from participating in sex parties you decided to tell me that the way I "might" raise my kids is wrong.

So YOU are the one trying to preach about rights yet at the same time tell people how to raise kids.

Nice try at attempting to restructure this debate. You fail.

Originally Posted by Everclear

I would challenge you to quote me as saying Judges put laws on the books. Nice try at dodging the fact that you are a complete idiot and your position is head firmly in ass.

Where did you say Judges put laws on the books? Right here:

Originally Posted by Everclear

So what would you tell the judge? The judge asks

"Why should I create more laws on the books, limit this guy's rights, and create more work for the system, when you can jsut put in earlplugs?"

You are clearly implying that a judge can make such law. I'm sure you are going to use the whole "you took me out of context" argument now, right? Please.

Originally Posted by Everclear

There are new regulations in the article... you were supportiev of the residents who got it passed... and now you are here slack-jawed wondering why I think you support new legislation. Are you on drugs?

Yes, I wonder why you would think that.

I am supportive of the residents who got it passed? Really? Where did I state this?

You seem to speak for me quite a bit so far on this thread to support your obvious failed attempt at a straw man argument.

Not once have I supported any new legislation. Read my fucking posts on the very first page of this thread, Everclear.

It is sad that I have to post it again due to your comprehension skills being inept.

Owners of a private swingers club in Duncanville sued the city Wednesday in hopes of overturning a new ordinance that prohibits their operation.

Jim Trulock and Julie M. Norris, 29, turn their home near Cedar Ridge Drive and Interstate 20 into the Cherry Pit on weekends. Last month the City Council unanimously passed an ordinance deeming sex clubs in private homes a public nuisance.

The Cherry Pit’s attorney, Ed Klein, said the lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of Duncanville’s ordinance.

Mr. Klein asked for a temporary restraining order to prevent the city from enforcing the ordinance while the lawsuit proceeds, but a judge declined.

City officials have issued one citation accusing Mr. Trulock of violating the city’s sexually oriented business, zoning and nuisance ordinances.

The City Council discussed the potential for a lawsuit from the Cherry Pit with the city’s attorney in a closed session last week. The council agreed to continue enforcing the ordinance, city spokeswoman Tonya Lewis said.

i know people who go here on the weekends. this isnt a "100 man freak sex party" as you keep referring to it. its not every man(or woman) for himself in a big pile. it is all consentual, and most of these people are long time friends, not random strangers. they form real friendship bonds with each other. also, not everyone who goes to these parties ends up having sex with someone every weekend, but because some people do have sex there, the neighbors are having a hissy fit about it.

while i dont participate in this lifestyle, i dont see why those who do should be referred to as "freaks", or persecuted by the gonverment for legal, consentual acts. if they were doing something illegal then ticket them, but dont force your beliefs on them.

the city started in on them because of complaints about the sex, they then issued citations for parking, and put up no parking signs... but ONLY in front of this house, not down the whole street. i think now, the reason they are able to call it a "sex club" is due to their advertising it, even though you need an invitation from a member to get in, they have a website and that counts as advertising.

by the way, the neighbors arent complaining about the noise, and there arent any naked people running up and down the street. they have a problem with the large amounts of trash at the curb on monday morning bringing down their home values, and of course their judgement of what is right and wrong morally.

However, if you are trying to sell your house, and you live next to a sex club, it probably isn't going to help you in any way whatsoever.

What should it matter? Its YOUR property thats for sale.

__________________bg85 on another forum:
"i always refer to myself as a "missionary agnostic." that is, not only do i not know shit about shit, but i'm going to try and convince you that you don't know shit about shit either and there's no way for you to know shit about shit."Heretic